Skip to main content

About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
bomber was mirandized within 45 minutes. i don't care if you read people miranda rights. i just don't want you to shut down the intelligence-gathering process. that individual was never designated an enassembly combatant. only way he agreed to cooperate is f.b.i. flew to his family i and his parents convinced him. times square bomber, the times square bombing incident, he had pakistan/taliban ties. read miranda rights, never designated enemy combatant. we never terroristed him for intelligence gathering purposes. osama bin laden's soim, abu gazey is in the federal system today and read miranda rights. never designated enemy combatant. can you imagine what osama bin laden's son-in-law could tell us about the terrorist organizations? he was the spokesman for al qaeda after 9/11. so there's a disturbing pattern here, quite frankly, of not gathering intelligence when that opportunity exists. thank you very much. i have to go. i will get a pen and pad and go next door to answer any questions if you have about the f.b.i. and, again, we're going to absorb a moment of silence here for the f
the miranda rights. there is a due process in a battle. it becomes more of a question into eating dinner in the house and then it's an even bigger push into eating dinner in america, in a cafÉ or in your house. that was a huge question but it works all the way back. is a spectrum, and also can go to war in molly or libya under the use of authorization of force that was done for afghanistan? i'll tell you how hard this battle will be. i tried to remove the use of force authorization of force for iraq last year. the war is over that i couldn't even stop the war that is already done. the reason why think it's important to take the use of authorization force back, that's the people's power and congress' power. it's ultimately the people's power through congress, but that power was separated and as long as we have a dangling out there, we have given carte blanche to any president to commit war anytime anywhere. and then there's the debate of whether or not they can infringe upon civil liberties here at home through that force. so no, i don't think we can completely get rid of it. i think wha
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3